When your best just isn’t good enough: the Kindle Fire HD

Buying Amazon's 7-inch tablet? Get ready to overlook some flaws.

Amazon landed the first real volley in the 7-inch Android device market. Sure, the initial Kindle Fire was rough around the edges, but its shockingly low $199 price tag and integration with Amazon's services won over a few (million) consumers. Amazon sold tons of Kindle Fires in December 2011, and it wasn't long before the device held the top spot on the Android hardware charts.

The Kindle Fire struck us as the perfect tablet-y gift for a close relative who has been hemming and hawing about whether to get an iPad for two years straight—here's a Kindle Fire, dad, now stop e-mailing me every week about tablets. Once the gift-giving season had passed, though, what were people going to do—buy one for themselves? Many tablet and Android enthusiasts, perhaps foreseeing the coming of Google's own tablet, the Nexus 7, stayed away.

Google didn't just create a sleek, snappy, honest-to-goodness Jelly Bean tablet; it also slapped it with the same starting $199 price tag as the chunkier, lackadaisical Kindle Fire. The Nexus 7 came out of the starting gate as a better iPad competitor than the Kindle Fire had any hope of being, and the race was over almost before it had even started.

From left: iPad 2, Kindle Fire HD, Nexus 7, iPhone 4S.

It was almost unfair to compare the Kindle Fire and Nexus 7 at all, given that Google freely admitted it was selling the Nexus 7 at cost, if not at a loss. Its price point belied the value of the product, and Google was (and is) counting on its deep pockets and robust advertising-based business model to keep Android's foot in the tablet door while other hardware manufacturers attempt to re-group.

But Amazon's narrative for the Kindle Fire was never all that different from Google's. The real money wasn't in the low-margin hardware but in the high-margin banana stand of Amazon's services and digital products: apps, music, movies, books, and all the rest. With the announcement of the HD versions, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos made this much more explicit, with multiple mentions about the value of Amazon's "services" and how the Kindle Fire would act as portal for that content. With this new round of Kindle Fires, Amazon has focused on improving those services, adding things like "X-Ray" to books and movies (a feature which automatically identifies actors and authors for the media you're currently viewing), improving parental controls, and offering a ton of audiobooks. But good services by themselves just aren't enough to distance it from the rest of the hungry Android pack.

Despite Amazon's presence as a huge go-to for books and its growing movie and music business, in our view the company was (and still is) underestimating the importance of the delivery vector for those services—the actual hardware. The regular e-ink Kindles may be no technological feat, but they're designed for a single task, and they're good at it. A tablet should be more like a blank slate, able to handle any of the varying tasks that developers, the Web, and media can throw at it. But Amazon continues to get in the way of Android with its own fork of the OS—an even bigger crime than before, since the custom modifications are all to Ice Cream Sandwich, which will delay, perhaps substantially, the adoption of the newer Jelly Bean on the platform.

Evaluated on its own, the Kindle Fire is a passable tablet. It's not incredibly easy to use, nor is it all that quick. It has no standout assets aside from its deep connection to the Amazon ecosystem; whether or not that's an asset to you, the customer, depends entirely on your engagement and purchase history with Amazon. With all that, it accomplishes plenty of tablet tasks adequately enough to justify its $199 price.

However, the Kindle Fire can't be evaluated purely on its own, because no device exists in a vacuum. Google laid down the 7-inch tablet law in July, and the Kindle Fire flatly does not measure up. Worse, with Apple still expected by many to announce a 7-inch-ish tablet of its own soon, the Kindle Fire could well finish a distant third in its price and size bracket before the holiday shopping season even swings into full gear.

Look, touch, feel

The first Kindle Fire had a much narrower bezel on the long sides than on the short ones, but the Kindle Fire HD fills the border out all around, as we noted in our initial hands-on with the device. This gives it a chunkier, boxier look than the first Kindle Fire or the Nexus 7. We noted how portable and book-like the Nexus 7 felt in our hands as we carried it around; due to its shape, the Kindle Fire HD feels a bit more like an iPad.

At 13.9 ounces it's not very heavy, but it weighs more than the Nexus 7's 12 ounces. Thanks to the rounded and rubberized back, the Kindle Fire HD is more comfortable to hold than its predecessor, the Kindle Fire. The power button and a volume rocker sit flush with the edge at the top of the device, between a headphone jack and one of the speakers.
Two ports, mini-HDMI and Micro USB, are planted in the center of one long side, while the microphone is embedded on the other long side, around the edge from the front-facing camera. Whether I hold it in my left or right hand, my thumb seems to find its way to the spot right over the camera's lens; I'd worry that I'm going to end up with a lot of finger-grease smeared on it, as the glass doesn't seem particularly resistant to prints.

The 1280×800 display, so important to the branding that "HD" is even in the device's name, is the same size and resolution as the screen in the Nexus 7. And a very good screen it is, with crisp text and fine edges to visual elements throughout the OS. The display uses in-plane switching (IPS) to help widen the viewing angles to great effect, and there's no noticeable lighting unevenness along any of the panel's edges. We didn't see much difference in the color profiles or display of blacks between the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire HD. If the screens were presented on their own, we're not sure we'd be able to tell the difference. The Kindle Fire HD's display is a bit warmer and brighter at the highest setting.

Colors on the Nexus 7, left, Kindle Fire HD, center, and iPad 2.

The Kindle Fire HD's screen also has a polarizing filter and "anti-glare technology" that Amazon made specific mention of during its presentation. We compared the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7 in direct sunlight, and both displays were perfectly visible. Whatever new layering processes or films Amazon has used don't seem to our eyes to make any appreciable difference.

162 Reader Comments

About what I expected from an Ars review in the tablet space. They've disliked the Fire from the beginning, and spent virtually no time with its unique features just as they did here. Furthermore, they never did a followup given the fact that Amazon released three major updates to the firmware of the first before Christmas, addressing most of the original criticisms. Something tells me they won't bother to follow up on this one either.

Virtually every other review of the FireHD has been very positive so far. While there are certainly valid criticisms to be made of the device, "Not simply using basic Android" is not one of them. Do we bash on Macs for "not just using Windows" or on a given Linux box for "not using Ubuntu"? Android is a branch of Linux, and we should embrace and encourage original thinking rather than just giving ourselves for free to Google. I'd like to see an article that actually took seriously the very different privacy implications for an Amazon(or B&N) device vs a device like the Nexus 7.

Meh, Ars reviews on tablets and phones have been questionable at best for a while now. Guess it was too much to hope for anything better this time around. I'll content myself with the fact that Nexus sales fell off a cliff after the first couple weeks, and that yet again the leaders this holiday are likely to be Apple and Amazon, with Microsoft as a dark horse with Surface.

Can't wait to see the inevitable Ars bash on Surface. You know its coming.

Actually, Ars' review of the original lined up pretty much identically with the actual experience of the one person I know who actually got a Fire last year: it didn't do anything better than any of the competitors, and lots of things worse. The main thing those firmware updates did functionally for the fellow I knew with one was make it harder for people to load vanilla Android: it certainly didn't make the email better, etc.

What is it that you see that the Fire actually offers as a benefit over, say, the Nexus 7 (at the same price point)?

For one better hardware. Twice the storage, a better GPU, better wifi, etc etc. Furthermore, the original Fire was updated no less than five times in the first few months, each one incrementally improving perf and adding features(most but not all minor refinements). Amazon supported it and continues to support it, and they have a true long term support commitment, even the original Kindle from 2007 retains support and gets new features.

One of the irritations I have with the original Fire review was Ars resistance to following up. We hear all the time about how crappy support is for released Android devices, Amazon was one of the few who kept supporting their Android device, but no mention of that in this review, or a followup on the original.

Nonsense. No one follows up on hardware reviews. Esp not for a cheap limited device with limited audience.

More importantly, every review has been clear that the Fire is laggy, so your 'better GPU' means what, exactly? It's not better hardware, just look at those pictures, it looks terrible. She said it has more storage, what exactly do you want? OMG 16GB GOOGLE IS DOOMZD!?

Ars isn't supposed to provide free advertising for Amazon or give you good feelings about your fanboy leanings. It's a nice, cheap, amazon-focused tablet, just like you'd expect.

Why are you so emotional about a device? It's not a top end device, and looking at the price, maybe you should already know that!

Asus has made some fair android tablets and so have Samsung. The problem is fair isn't nothing to get excited about when the iPad exist.The problem is 3 fold.

1) Developers aren't making android tablets apps. Journalist seem to blame Google for this. Should Google force developers to make apps for a platform they don't want. With the iPad selling like is why even waste time. You do have the benefit that if you make create an app on par with an iPad app it will stand out but are there enough android tablets users that are willing to pay for it ? 2)Content. Amazon and Apple has content. Google Play is playing catch up, why be part of the ecosystem that's playing catch up ? However it is easier getting content on any android device from any source than any Apple device because you don't need iTunes.You should be able to just drag and drop.3)Just because its better doesn't mean people will buy it. This is a problem for Windows Phone as well. Although I prefer Android I consider it to a great OS. I want a Lumia 920, just not more than a JellyBean device. Before Android 4.0 and 4.1 I think that it was the second best phone Os. People didn't buy it. Was it hardware? I don't know.

So Amazon comes along it decides to focus on content, but at the same they went to aggressive. They avoided 3 with pricing. People leave inexpensive devices that promise quality experience. Is the performance really quality is a personal opinion. My use with the first Fire exposed issues, but others claimed it work perfectly.

The iPad's aren't perfect devices. There's nothing a company rivaling the iPad on specs or hardware. Its the software and ecosystem. Maybe Windows 8 tablets,( if you even consider them to tablets, more like laptops with detachable keyboards, but thats not a bad thing), will be the thing to encourage developers to make great tablet apps for an ecosystem besides Apple.

If I was Google I would pay developers to start making tablet apps. Google also needs to create a 10 inch Nexus tablet to compete with Surface. Yes the iPad is winning, but no Android Oem has convinced me that are really ready to compete with Apple in the tablet space, so they need to set their sights on Surface before it becomes number 2.

People were saying that Amazon wasn't trying to compete with Apple. I disagree; they think there were offering a quality user experience. It appears that this isn't the case.

This reaks of those old pre-iPad tablets. They are trying to push as much content consumption onto people that they have sacrificed quality. The grid of icons, separate apps works, don't change it to a model where your content is above the applications. What the iPad did was introduced a model where there was no separation between the content and application elevating the principle of a application to the level of main interaction. Amazon is trying to do the inverse which cannot end up well. Create *good* applications and a simple way to access them instead of trying to create a physical portal to a ecosystem. Apple separates their content into apps on a grid of icons, no widgets, no contextual launchers, just simply a starting point.

While I like the Nexus 7, my biggest complaint and evidently this holds true for the Kindle as well, is that magazines suck! You can't read them without zooming and moving the page around. Seems like that would be a bigger deal. Maybe I'm the only one that reads magazines any more, but the experience is so much better on an iPad. I'm wondering if this isn't the reason Apple's budget tablet is going to be slightly bigger than the Nexus/Kindle. Although it might suck for that too as I'm not sure how much smaller I'd want the screen to be when viewing magazines. I can't help but like that $200 - $250 price tag and while I'll probably hold out to see what an iPad mini looks like, I can't see Apple being able to compete at that price point. I'd guess $300 would be the min, as the other companies are selling theirs at cost or even below. And we all know Apple is going to make a profit or they won't do it.

If Apple can hit a $200 - $250 price point, then the only people sporting the Nexus will be Apple haters and the Kindle Fire might as well shut down production.

I've been trying to find an Android device to buy to get my feet wet with something from that side of the OS X / Android divide, and to maybe mess around with the ADK. Looks like the correct answer is Nexus 7.

No, a "Positive" review is a review where the reviewer felt that the object being reviewed met or exceeded expectations (or simply liked it). Returning a "Positive" review has nothing to do with the quality or value of the review, however the quality of the review may make you more willing to agree with an author's positive conclusion about the device.

This comment is amazingly weird from an Ars moderator, a site that proudly wears it's "we're a blog, not journalists, everything we write is our opinion." badge. Are you accusing every author here that has given his/her opinion in a review of failing at their job?

First, to be totally clear: I don't speak for Ars, work for Ars, or anything approaching any of that (I should be so lucky). I'm a volunteer moderator for one of the Fora. I am no different than you in terms of my status as a consumer of Ars' content: I'm here to read, enjoy, and comment. On balance, I think Ars features some of the best technology writing on the net, bar none. That doesn't mean I don't hold my own opinions -- as someone who has worked in media for most of my adult life -- about what I appreciate or don't appreciate in a review of a consumer product.

Perhaps my original comments were too abrupt; A better way of putting it, instead of just reacting to what reflex-croft said, would've been to say that I appreciate critical reviews more than uniformly positive ones, because they do a better job of informing me about the shortcomings of a product. I may then decide which of those shortcomings do or don't matter to me (and whether calling them a "shortcoming" was fair of the reviewer), and make an informed decision about a product.

I still don't understand how they're going to monitize this. Cash says that their "high margin"content is supposed to do that. But content isn't high margin, it's low margin.

It's I treating to see the difference between Apple and Amazon's business plans here. Apple make a high quality tablet, and makes a good profit on the sale, using that low margin content to give custo ers so ethi g to use it with, in addition to all the apps, fun and productivity both. Amazon is selling a smaller, cheaper tablet either at a loss or, at best, from what Bezos said, at break even, in order to get customers to buy their low margin content.

It's no wonder that Amazon just barely breaks even. It's not a good business model. At some point investors will understand that the 330 P/E they're giving Amazon's stock is more than ten times too high, and it will come crashing down. Maybe then, Amazon will stop taking losses on books and other content they sell.

It is more like advertising, they want ads on the devices in front of you, because it is known from psychology that simple repetition leads to purchasing.

Think about it as very focused targeted electronic billboard.

They also do things like one click to build synergistic impulse shopping effect.

I do understand where reflex-croft is coming from. I'm an owner of the first gen Kindle Fire, and it does feel like Casey was just down on the devices. I think that's due the fact that, especially for the first-gen device, the KF was simply a value proposition. It had plenty of shortcomings, but it was better than the awful low-end android tablets that were out at the time, and price tag was where it made up the difference. If you weren't weighing that sub-50% iPad price very heavily in the mix, then sure, you're going to be down on the device, because it's certainly no iPad. However, that's unfortunate, because price is central to the point of why Amazon created it.

Now, eight months later, when Google released the Nexus 7 (specifically to kill the Fire), the value proposition becomes FAR weaker for the original and does really limit the audience of the HD. If you're a big Amazon Kindle/Prime user already (and there are many, many of those), or you aren't super tech savvy and want a cheap tab for media, then the HD could be a good fit. If you're just looking for a cheap general purpose tablet, you'll be much better suited for Nexus 7.

Perhaps my original comments were too abrupt; A better way of putting it, instead of just reacting to what reflex-croft said, would've been to say that I appreciate critical reviews more than uniformly positive ones, because they do a better job of informing me about the shortcomings of a product. I may then decide which of those shortcomings do or don't matter to me (and whether calling them a "shortcoming" was fair of the reviewer), and make an informed decision about a product.

I've been trying to find an Android device to buy to get my feet wet with something from that side of the OS X / Android divide, and to maybe mess around with the ADK. Looks like the correct answer is Nexus 7.

*ding ding ding* You are correct, sir. It's a great device and blows every other 7" tablet away (at least until the iPad mini comes out, and I think it will still stack up nicely against that). Pair it with a Galaxy Nexus and you have a great introduction to Android (though, sadly, one that will make you look at the vast majority of non-"pure" Android devices and wonder "what in the hell were they thinking??").

Here's a question that I've wondered about before, but this seems like a place to ask it. I'm not a programmer at all, so I have no idea, and this is probably a dumb question but so be it.

How difficult is it to port say an iOS app over to Android? I've heard people say that some apps aren't getting Android versions (or at least not quickly), and am I correct in assuming that this is because you basically have to re-write it from the ground up?

Here's a question that I've wondered about before, but this seems like a place to ask it. I'm not a programmer at all, so I have no idea, and this is probably a dumb question but so be it.

How difficult is it to port say an iOS app over to Android? I've heard people say that some apps aren't getting Android versions (or at least not quickly), and am I correct in assuming that this is because you basically have to re-write it from the ground up?

Depends entirely on the app, and the developer's skill level and familiarity with Objective C and Java. Assuming the dev is relatively competent and fluent in both languages, some apps can be ported really quickly and painlessly, while others require a lot more heavy lifting. There are also tools that allow you to build an app and compile for both platforms, although there you're dependent on a third party staying up to date with SDK and API changes.

I think the reason that apps often debut first on iOS is primarily financial, not technological. At present, there's generally more money to be made targeting iOS, so that's where a lot of devs look first.

Depends entirely on the app, and the developer's skill level and familiarity with Objective C and Java. Assuming the dev is relatively competent and fluent in both languages, some apps can be ported really quickly and painlessly, while others require a lot more heavy lifting. There are also tools that allow you to build an app and compile for both platforms, although there you're dependent on a third party staying up to date with SDK and API changes.

I think the reason that apps often debut first on iOS is primarily financial, not technological. At present, there's generally more money to be made targeting iOS, so that's where a lot of devs look first.

Both the wife and I are beyond satisfied with the Nexus 7s we have. Great device for a fantastic price. Washed out screen... can't say I agree there. Screen looks fantastic as I sit here... on the john... reading Ars. That's one of the things the 7 inch tablet is truly good at.

While I like the Nexus 7, my biggest complaint and evidently this holds true for the Kindle as well, is that magazines suck! You can't read them without zooming and moving the page around. Seems like that would be a bigger deal. Maybe I'm the only one that reads magazines any more, but the experience is so much better on an iPad. I'm wondering if this isn't the reason Apple's budget tablet is going to be slightly bigger than the Nexus/Kindle. Although it might suck for that too as I'm not sure how much smaller I'd want the screen to be when viewing magazines. I can't help but like that $200 - $250 price tag and while I'll probably hold out to see what an iPad mini looks like, I can't see Apple being able to compete at that price point. I'd guess $300 would be the min, as the other companies are selling theirs at cost or even below. And we all know Apple is going to make a profit or they won't do it.

If Apple can hit a $200 - $250 price point, then the only people sporting the Nexus will be Apple haters and the Kindle Fire might as well shut down production.

A couple things to correct. First, already mentioned elsewhere, is that the original Fire allowed you to delete stuff off the carousel by long-pressing on it. This wasn't available initially, but was added in an update. Incidentally, it was also buggy initially, and stuff would be removed only to reappear later. They eventually got that fixed. Second, the original Fire also had a text-only view for magazines, although it wasn't intuitive so most people don't seem to realize it's there. It sounds like they've made it more obvious this time around.

reflex-croft wrote:

For one better hardware. Twice the storage, a better GPU, better wifi, etc etc. Furthermore, the original Fire was updated no less than five times in the first few months, each one incrementally improving perf and adding features(most but not all minor refinements). Amazon supported it and continues to support it, and they have a true long term support commitment, even the original Kindle from 2007 retains support and gets new features.

One of the irritations I have with the original Fire review was Ars resistance to following up. We hear all the time about how crappy support is for released Android devices, Amazon was one of the few who kept supporting their Android device, but no mention of that in this review, or a followup on the original.

You realize that the Kindle Fire HD 7" uses OMAP 4460, right? It doesn't have a better GPU than the Nexus 7. Casey also did explicitly mention both the storage advantage and the wifi, with the former being explicitly called out as an advantage for the Fire HD. The wifi is also discussed, but ultimately, it's something that's pretty tough to test. Is she supposed to just believe Bezos and say the wifi is awesome? The only hardware advantage the Fire HD has over the Nexus 7, beyond storage, is that it seems to have better speakers.

As for revisiting reviews... when have review sites ever done that for any phone or tablet, absent major updates or revisions? The original Fire did get some updates, but for the most part they were just to add a few features, like email and parental controls, or to fix bugs. It never got an update that merited a re-review.

While I like the Nexus 7, my biggest complaint and evidently this holds true for the Kindle as well, is that magazines suck! You can't read them without zooming and moving the page around. Seems like that would be a bigger deal. Maybe I'm the only one that reads magazines any more, but the experience is so much better on an iPad. I'm wondering if this isn't the reason Apple's budget tablet is going to be slightly bigger than the Nexus/Kindle. Although it might suck for that too as I'm not sure how much smaller I'd want the screen to be when viewing magazines. I can't help but like that $200 - $250 price tag and while I'll probably hold out to see what an iPad mini looks like, I can't see Apple being able to compete at that price point. I'd guess $300 would be the min, as the other companies are selling theirs at cost or even below. And we all know Apple is going to make a profit or they won't do it.

If Apple can hit a $200 - $250 price point, then the only people sporting the Nexus will be Apple haters and the Kindle Fire might as well shut down production.

Why ya gotta be a prick? Who the fuck says you are an "irrational emotional idiot" for valuing different things? Since I clearly state I'm trying to decide what I want, how would you even be able to judge what tablet metrics I value?

The only irrational, emotional idiot here is you. *I'm not rolling my eyes*

I've been trying to find an Android device to buy to get my feet wet with something from that side of the OS X / Android divide, and to maybe mess around with the ADK. Looks like the correct answer is Nexus 7.

Yes, Google branded devices basically sits at the center of the Android-experience bell curve. There are some devices providing slightly better user experience, and many that are just bloatware providing useless "differentiation". If you get a Nexus device (Nexus 7, Galaxy Nexus) and found out you don't like how it works in general, then you can quite safely say Android (in its current form) is not the OS for you, and go back to iOS knowing that you've made an informed decision.

I personally own a Galaxy Nexus and an iPad 2, and there are truly pros and cons unique to both platforms (Android gives me all the information I want in the least amount of time, iPad is just so unbelievably fluid to use), so it all comes down to which one suits you the best.

While I like the Nexus 7, my biggest complaint and evidently this holds true for the Kindle as well, is that magazines suck! You can't read them without zooming and moving the page around. Seems like that would be a bigger deal. Maybe I'm the only one that reads magazines any more, but the experience is so much better on an iPad. I'm wondering if this isn't the reason Apple's budget tablet is going to be slightly bigger than the Nexus/Kindle. Although it might suck for that too as I'm not sure how much smaller I'd want the screen to be when viewing magazines. I can't help but like that $200 - $250 price tag and while I'll probably hold out to see what an iPad mini looks like, I can't see Apple being able to compete at that price point. I'd guess $300 would be the min, as the other companies are selling theirs at cost or even below. And we all know Apple is going to make a profit or they won't do it.

If Apple can hit a $200 - $250 price point, then the only people sporting the Nexus will be Apple haters and the Kindle Fire might as well shut down production.

Why ya gotta be a prick? Who the fuck says you are an "irrational emotional idiot" for valuing different things? Since I clearly state I'm trying to decide what I want, how would you even be able to judge what tablet metrics I value?

The only irrational, emotional idiot here is you. *I'm not rolling my eyes*

How about because you can't imagine anyone other than Apple haters who would *not* want an iPad mini at $200~$250 range?

If you get a Nexus device (Nexus 7, Galaxy Nexus) and found out you don't like how it works in general, then you can quite safely say Android (in its current form) is not the OS for you, and go back to iOS knowing that you've made an informed decision.

This is very good advice.

Quote:

I personally own a Galaxy Nexus and an iPad 2, and there are truly pros and cons unique to both platforms (Android gives me all the information I want in the least amount of time, iPad is just so unbelievably fluid to use), so it all comes down to which one suits you the best.

This is outdated, though. Try a Jelly Bean device. You'd be one of the first to complain if anyone were to compare Android 4.1 to iOS 4, right? Then it's logical you compare like with like and use the latest versions of both platforms.

Try a Nexus 7 (or any other Android 4.1 device). At the side of your iPad2, you'll be quite pleasantly surprised, it makes iOS' supposed smoothness look rather ordinary.

How about because you can't imagine anyone other than Apple haters who would *not* want an iPad mini at $200~$250 range?

And I am certainly not the emotional one here [/quote]

Please, their your words. Maybe you should worry less about putting words into other people's mouths and more about forming your own opinions. And for the record, as I stated, I don't think Apple can or won't hit that price point, but if they put out an iPad mini at $199 it's going to be hard to compete. There is a reason everyone else sells their products at a loss and are already talking about dropping their prices. I'm not some fanboy for either side but it doesn't take a genius to read this market.

Everyone keeps complaining that the new kindle fire is nothing like the iPad, but they seem to overlook one major aspect: the price. The iPad sells for $500 while the kindle fire sells for $200. I don't see how you can compare the two. Does anyone compare a Toyota Corolla to an Audi A5? If Amazon wanted to ensure that their tablets could compete head to head with an iPad, they could never compete on price given that Apple has a huge advantage in its economies of scale. Amazon has always played the price game; their margins run in the lower single digit range. Apple mean while gets well over 30% margins on each of it's products and is already sitting on a mountain of cash. With all that cash to burn and being a (mainly) hardware-design focused company, you'd expect them to come up with a killer design every time.Google on the other has had over 5 years in OS developments and outsources their tablet design to Asus, who in turn has several years of experience in hardware manufacturing. Since, the nexus 7 sells at cost or below cost, the nexus 7 is expected to be a better offering. Amazon might consider partnering with a tablet manufacturer for their next version and look to focus on improving the OS performance on their machines.But, all said and done, Amazon's offering is nothing like the iPad and hence it's not really fair to compare the two.

The title of the article is completely misdirected -- Amazon's best is clearly the 8.9", which was not reviewed here.

All in all it seems that the 7" KF stacks up decently well against the Nexus 7. I hope you'll excuse me if I put more weight on the scarce benchmarks and much less on the reviewer's impressions, especially after the ludicrous camera comparison by using Skype.

If you get a Nexus device (Nexus 7, Galaxy Nexus) and found out you don't like how it works in general, then you can quite safely say Android (in its current form) is not the OS for you, and go back to iOS knowing that you've made an informed decision.

This is very good advice.

Quote:

I personally own a Galaxy Nexus and an iPad 2, and there are truly pros and cons unique to both platforms (Android gives me all the information I want in the least amount of time, iPad is just so unbelievably fluid to use), so it all comes down to which one suits you the best.

This is outdated, though. Try a Jelly Bean device. You'd be one of the first to complain if anyone were to compare Android 4.1 to iOS 4, right? Then it's logical you compare like with like and use the latest versions of both platforms.

Try a Nexus 7 (or any other Android 4.1 device). At the side of your iPad2, you'll be quite pleasantly surprised, it makes iOS' supposed smoothness look rather ordinary.

WADR, Hat, I own both a Nexus 7 and an iPad and the smoothness of the Nex7 is not quite on par, IMHO.

As an example, the page scrolling on the N7 is still somewhat craggy on slow movements as compared to the iPad. Not a game-changer but something that is noticeable.

That being said, you will not find a better Android tab than the Nexus 7. If you're looking for an Android tablet, look no further. Until there is a Nexus 10", the Nexus 7 is exactly what you're looking for.

A note to the author. The term " spastic " is not really considered appropriate in the UK in any sense but a medical one any more. Actually it's considered to be quite gross to use the term as flippantly as you have.

Quote:

The browser on the Kindle Fire HD does work, but it's one of the apps that takes the longest to open (usually a couple of seconds) and can be a little spastic as we try to read Web sites. Page scrolling and zooming are quick, but can be a little choppy.

Everyone keeps complaining that the new kindle fire is nothing like the iPad, but they seem to overlook one major aspect: the price. The iPad sells for $500 while the kindle fire sells for $200. I don't see how you can compare the two.

hmm, a bit surprised that the device which is physically closest to this (to the extent one may confuse them) is not presented here: the Blackberry Playbook.Sure, it is not a book reader initially, and reaching 64 Gb and multitasking so it's somehow another category, but still as we mostly kept technical here, a technical comparison would have been welcome...

A note to the author. The term " spastic " is not really considered appropriate in the UK in any sense but a medical one any more. Actually it's considered to be quite gross to use the term as flippantly as you have.

If we were talking about a person, that might be understandable. But what other adjective would you use to indicate that an inanimate object like the browser is "affected by spasms"?

A note to the author. The term " spastic " is not really considered appropriate in the UK in any sense but a medical one any more. Actually it's considered to be quite gross to use the term as flippantly as you have.

If we were talking about a person, that might be understandable. But what other adjective would you use to indicate that an inanimate object like the browser is "affected by spasms"?

Spasmodic is the correct word for describing an object or feature exhibiting spasms. Spastic is an entirely derogatory term. Fwiw.

Casey, you can sideload most Android apps from the Google Play store, so I am at a loss as to why you couldn't run a decent benchmark.

I mean, complaining about the sparse content on the Amazon store is valid from a user perspective - most users are certainly never going to figure out how to sideload - but as a reviewer, it's really not too much to ask.

Casey is not a highly technical reviewer and refuses to go out of her way to learn anything about how to properly evaluate hardware. There are half a dozen ways to test wifi performance, unfortunately she did not bother to try any of them.

Ouch. Seriously, who punched you in the side of the head to wake you up? You've obviously got a chip on your shoulder and are looking to vent malice at someone.

Casey's reviews are very useful to the majority of readers as a solid overview of what is most important (and remember the target audience for these things = she mentioned it in her article, mostly to only somewhat tech-savvy family members as gifts last year ... the rest went with iProduct or waited for the Nexus 7). This article is no different and is well written.

A note to the author. The term " spastic " is not really considered appropriate in the UK in any sense but a medical one any more. Actually it's considered to be quite gross to use the term as flippantly as you have.

Quote:

The browser on the Kindle Fire HD does work, but it's one of the apps that takes the longest to open (usually a couple of seconds) and can be a little spastic as we try to read Web sites. Page scrolling and zooming are quick, but can be a little choppy.

I don't think it's incumbent on Ars to make vet every word used in an article against what every flippin' culture on the planet might find offensive.

A note to the author. The term " spastic " is not really considered appropriate in the UK in any sense but a medical one any more. Actually it's considered to be quite gross to use the term as flippantly as you have.

Quote:

The browser on the Kindle Fire HD does work, but it's one of the apps that takes the longest to open (usually a couple of seconds) and can be a little spastic as we try to read Web sites. Page scrolling and zooming are quick, but can be a little choppy.

I don't think it's incumbent on Ars to make vet every word used in an article against what every flippin' culture on the planet might find offensive.

Is it incumbent for them to use the correct word for what they are trying to write rather than the wholly incorrect one, though? Spastic isn't the correct word for the context used irrespective of its offensiveness.

hmm, a bit surprised that the device which is physically closest to this (to the extent one may confuse them) is not presented here: the Blackberry Playbook.Sure, it is not a book reader initially, and reaching 64 Gb and multitasking so it's somehow another category, but still as we mostly kept technical here, a technical comparison would have been welcome...

Probably because it's completely irrelevant and sells in extremely small numbers compared to the other tablets mentioned? Before I read your comment, I had even forgotten it existed

A note to the author. The term " spastic " is not really considered appropriate in the UK in any sense but a medical one any more. Actually it's considered to be quite gross to use the term as flippantly as you have.

If we were talking about a person, that might be understandable. But what other adjective would you use to indicate that an inanimate object like the browser is "affected by spasms"?

Spasmodic is the correct word for describing an object or feature exhibiting spasms. Spastic is an entirely derogatory term. Fwiw.

Mirriam-Webster gives "affected by spasms" as the first definition for both "spastic" and "spasmodic". So while I'll accept that "spasmodic" may be the preferred term in the UK, I refused to accept that "spastic" has an entirely derogatory denotation.

Yes, it has an entirely derogatory connotation in some cultures. But that's their own baggage, not what the word actually means.

A note to the author. The term " spastic " is not really considered appropriate in the UK in any sense but a medical one any more. Actually it's considered to be quite gross to use the term as flippantly as you have.

Frankly, this is an American site. I wouldn't tell a UK-based writer to stop using "brilliant" to express approval of something just because it doesn't carry that connotation in my country.